Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shades]

I said "reasonable". You're not being reasonable if the aesthetics matter that much. The aesthetics of DF are purely functional at this point, intended to display information rather than look pretty. And even if you do want to complain about how it looks, there are much, much more important things to complain about than seeing ramps below your water.

I have enough nervous ticks screwing up my eyes without random flashing tiles that used to be avoided.

And you've completely ignored the fact the new system just gives less construction option than the old for no (good) reason.

[G-Flex]

Huh? I was "avoiding" the fact because it's not what I was talking about, at all. Stop thinking that I'm trying to argue for or against the new system, because I haven't been. I've just stated what Toady's reason for it is, in case people didn't know, and if I see and argument for/against it that I think is frivolous, well, that's another thing entirely.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I hope you don't mind if I make this my last post in this thread. I explained my stance and I have no more to contribute to the discussion here. There are just some minor things I wanted to clarify as there seem to be misunderstandings there:

As I said before, I am in favor of the new method, and seeing all the drama, I got the feeling that it is actually a good thing - good policy changes usually cause a lot of noise from the old elite :) :) :) :)

...

Has it occurred to you that bad policy changes would also cause complaints?

That is why I put the smileys at the end of that passage and then started the next passage with "But seriously,..." . I was just joking there about the laws of complaints about policy change, even though I still stand with what I have said about my position before.

And given that there seem to be people who dislike the new channelling, people who like the new channelling, and people who actually don't really care, I would recommend to have a poll attached to that discussion so you can really see whether there are really so many people who consider it a problem.

The only new functionality the new method provides is allowing you to avoid undercutting trees. Everything else is just a function of people using the wrong tool for the job. In exchange, we lost the capacity to create aesthetically pleasing and safe waterworks, and turned unusual pathfinding into a significant bug.

Just to clarify this, I don't think I was referring to functionality there. I was merely pointing out that people on this thread have shown various opinions ranging from extremely annoyed by the change over neutral right to great idea. Why individual people have such stances was not my concern in that post - I was only mentioning things you might wish to include in a suggestion thread for the reinstitution of the old channeling.

Anyhow, I simply wish everyone to have fun playing DF, regardless of the minor and major problems probably all of us are encountering.

Deathworks

[cakeonslaught]

You know, you can remove the ramps, so complaining is just a waste of time...

[Shades]

You know, you can remove the ramps, so complaining is just a waste of time...

Cept for the last ramp.

Unless you flood the ditch after and let the dwarf swim out. Which is fine if it's not a magma channel

[cakeonslaught]

hahaha, you may have to sacrifice a dwarf for aesthetic's sake.

[Shades]

hahaha, you may have to sacrifice a dwarf for aesthetic's sake.

Which nicely brings us back to the point we can't do as much in this version (with regards to mining) as the last.

[TKTom]

 Discussion should take place here.

 This behaviour is blatantly not a bug, maybe the threads will be merged or something.

[Duane]

Let water wash away ramps in soil (Irrigation?) and let magma melt them away if the material isn't magma-safe. A bit of a cheap fix, but I don't see why not. This way, you could remove ramps of stone and let the water wash away the dirt ramps that are left, same with Magma.

[Squirrelloid]

I said "reasonable". You're not being reasonable if the aesthetics matter that much. The aesthetics of DF are purely functional at this point, intended to display information rather than look pretty. And even if you do want to complain about how it looks, there are much, much more important things to complain about than seeing ramps below your water.

You're very wrong here G-Flex.  People spend hundreds of hours making elaborate fortresses.  Aesthetics are a huge issue, and stray unremovable ramps are an eyesore even for those of us who love ASCII graphics.

[Sean Mirrsen]

They aren't any more unremovable than they were though. And after all, it is practical. Next time your elite hammerdwarf dodges a troglodyte into your moat, you will wish it had ramps on its sides.

[Squirrelloid]

They aren't any more unremovable than they were though. And after all, it is practical. Next time your elite hammerdwarf dodges a troglodyte into your moat, you will wish it had ramps on its sides.

I know you've been following this thread, so you can't be that ignorant.  I'm referring to liquid breach tiles, which really are unremovable.

No, I don't consider modding dwarves to be magma-immune an acceptable work around.

[G-Flex]

I said "reasonable". You're not being reasonable if the aesthetics matter that much. The aesthetics of DF are purely functional at this point, intended to display information rather than look pretty. And even if you do want to complain about how it looks, there are much, much more important things to complain about than seeing ramps below your water.

You're very wrong here G-Flex.  People spend hundreds of hours making elaborate fortresses.  Aesthetics are a huge issue, and stray unremovable ramps are an eyesore even for those of us who love ASCII graphics.

Maybe some people should realize that those things in the game are meant to be functional, and that things being slightly aesthetically weird is not an overarching concern in any way.

Some people might treat DF like it's essentially a lego set, but there's an actual game involved too, and its concerns take precedence over allowing you to construct any shape you feel like at any given time for any reason.

[Squirrelloid]

I said "reasonable". You're not being reasonable if the aesthetics matter that much. The aesthetics of DF are purely functional at this point, intended to display information rather than look pretty. And even if you do want to complain about how it looks, there are much, much more important things to complain about than seeing ramps below your water.

You're very wrong here G-Flex.  People spend hundreds of hours making elaborate fortresses.  Aesthetics are a huge issue, and stray unremovable ramps are an eyesore even for those of us who love ASCII graphics.

Maybe some people should realize that those things in the game are meant to be functional, and that things being slightly aesthetically weird is not an overarching concern in any way.

Some people might treat DF like it's essentially a lego set, but there's an actual game involved too, and its concerns take precedence over allowing you to construct any shape you feel like at any given time for any reason.

Uh... there's no victory condition.  It is a LEGO set - that's the very definition of sandbox, which is what this is.  Games require a victory condition - so where's the game?

Which isn't to say I mind having stuff come along and try to trash my LEGO people occasionally, but taking away from my building tools to accomplish absolutely nothing (oh noes, i have to designate remove ramps for a moat) doesn't make it any harder to survive.

Finally, disparaging the way some people prefer to use the game is not a healthy way to develope a game, especially since the mega-project builders are some of the more visible players to the outside world.

[Grocer]

Some people might treat DF like it's essentially a lego set, but there's an actual game involved too, and its concerns take precedence over allowing you to construct any shape you feel like at any given time for any reason.

I'ma go over to the other thread, as it's clear this is a design decision, not a bug.  It's nice to know what the motivation behind the change was.  It's unfortunate that the change doesn't have any serious effects in terms of making defense harder yet does introduce other issues.

...taking away from my building tools to accomplish absolutely nothing (oh noes, i have to designate remove ramps for a moat) doesn't make it any harder to survive.

This isn't entirely true, as it is clear that several people find the new methods make strip mining a much simpler process, as well as more intuitive.  I had no idea so many people went in for strip mining in such a big way.  Live and learn.  I suppose it isn't a trivial point - ease of use may not be a big game focus but should be encouraged when it crops up - but neither are aesthetics and dwarf conservation.  I submit that the two can co-exist peacefully.  We can revert channeling (until such time as other improvements eliminate the need to abstract out climbing and breaching) and have a dig downward ramp command in the same menu!

To the Suggestions Forum!  And Victory!